The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

lapua338 wrote:I don't understand how anyone can have a good word to say about this bunch of sniveling, slithering masonic inadequates.

Masonic ?

I think it's sensible not to draw 100% conclusions from the news story without considering there maybe some other details we don't know. Having been in court a few times in my life the fact the judge makes a conclusion sometimes has little relevance to all the facts in the case and is more of a reflection of those facts that they considered. I'm not saying that's the case here simply that's how it is, courts are at best imperfect sources of information sadly. Certainly I think that the nra (speaking as a member) should comment on the matter and i will reserve my view after that comment (hoping we get one) is made public.

Thorney wrote:I think it's sensible not to draw 100% conclusions from the news story without considering there maybe some other details we don't know. Having been in court a few times in my life the fact the judge makes a conclusion sometimes has little relevance to all the facts in the case and is more of a reflection of those facts that they considered. I'm not saying that's the case here simply that's how it is, courts are at best imperfect sources of information sadly. Certainly I think that the nra (speaking as a member) should comment on the matter and i will reserve my view after that comment (hoping we get one) is made public.

+1

Maybe the NRA should be open and honest and publish something in the Journal. They are quick enough to give out members names when they make a mistake, intentionally or not, and get disciplined. Surely a brief mention of what is believed to have happened, what is being done to stop it happening again and that the culprit, if found, will be sacked.

I presume storing guns in the armoury brings in money. Surely the membership have the right to know that their equipment is secure and not open to interference while in the NRA's care.

Strange that nobody from the NRA has been on to defend themselves.

NRA staff seem to have been instructed not to post on here.

dromia wrote:NRA staff seem to have been instructed not to post on here.

And to some extent I can understand that, whilst this forum has a lot of nra members on it it's not the official communication method, I'd hope that a comment in the next journal together with a FB comment released at the same time would be prudent. I don't believe in censorship, however I believe that comment without all the facts is usually misguided.

Certainly I think that the nra (speaking as a member) should comment on the matter and i will reserve my view after that comment (hoping we get one) is made public.


In all fairness given that Surrey Police have uncovered other thefts, it may not be prudent to comment if there is an ongoing investigation. All the same it doesn't inspire confidence having a Judge declare in open court that the National Shooting Centre doesn't operate a secure S5 armoury. More ammo for folks such as the GCN

Blu wrote:Certainly I think that the nra (speaking as a member) should comment on the matter and i will reserve my view after that comment (hoping we get one) is made public.


In all fairness given that Surrey Police have uncovered other thefts, it may not be prudent to comment if there is an ongoing investigation. All the same it doesn't inspire confidence having a Judge declare in open court that the National Shooting Centre doesn't operate a secure S5 armoury. More ammo for folks such as the GCN

Especially as Mr mercer was driven away and interviewed at the cop shop for throwing an tantrum at some poor woman for someone parking in his space!

So he's streamlined Bisley....big deal,anyone with an once of savy who wasent an ex army officer/public schoolboy toff target rifle shooter and got someone from the real world where in business folk expect results could sort it out...no they had to pick a guy who's behaviour is not only far from laudable but questionable in professionalism in many folks opinion....

Sounds like to me they've buggered up something that would have been fairly easy to resolve with the customer-fair enough you have a cock up, its then how you put it right which defines you as a business or organisation. It does still appear that there is an error in their process/ protocol of logging and storing firearms that has allowed that to happen.

If I lost a Sect 1 part of a firearms I imagine my issuing force wouldn't be best please about it-granted it happens for various legitimate reasons to people from time to time but it's something we're all very careful about.

I also don't blame the firearm owner for wanting to keep the original rifle and charging top whack for the compensation-I'm sure she can get something even smarter now!

A zf41 is easy enough to flog but I wonder just how valuable a k98 bolt is on the black market?